Scozzafava has screwed every RINO in the coun -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just see how phony and dangerous they are. You know, 2010 might be a nightmare for PETA. Two animals may become extinct; RINOs and Blue Dog Democrats. Pelosi's gonna kill off the Blue Dogs, and the conservatives are gonna finally get rid of RINOs. The American people have had enough.

Audio at the link. I'd embed, but the photo used there (Media Matters) is of the old (fat) Rush, and I don't want to display that here.

So are you shocked at Rush's crude humor, or do you think that's a level of sexual humor that you hear all the time coming from, say, Chris Rock or Bill Maher, and aimed at conservatives? It's a twist that you've got a woman in the masculine role, but that's good feminism. Meanwhile, Owens's defense is retrograde. Not only did Scozzafava withdraw from a tough fight, she sought refuge in the arms of her former opponent, who now absorbs her and enfolds her in protection. That's not progress for feminism. Why doesn't Scozzafava stand up for herself and — as they say — punch back twice as hard?

But, feminism aside, what is Owens really saying "exemplifies exactly what's wrong with Hoffman and his right wing backers"? Is it that they make sex-themed wisecracks? I think he's referring to the fact that real conservatives are actually conservative. They don't like RINOs and they want to discredit them, and they are exulting over Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat because it demonstrates clearly that RINOs are not really Republicans. Conservatives want the GOP to be conservative. That's "exactly what is wrong" from the point of view of a Democrat like Owens, because he would have preferred to compete with a liberal Republican. Presumably, he knows it's easier for a Democrat to argue that he is the better liberal than to pit liberal values against conservative values. That is what he admitted, isn't it?

[W]hat's happened now is that Owens has come out and issued a statement defending Dede Scozzafava against this outrageous personal attack launched by me. Now, Dede Scozzafava is a liberal woman. I thought she could take care of herself. Why do these wimp liberal guys have to come out and start defending these women? What happened to feminism in this country? I mean, why did she quit in the first place? That's not what feminism taught women to do.

There's nothing shocking about it. It's just a funny way of talking about a situation where two groups, RINO's and Blue Dogs are referred to with animal names.

Really a remarkable episode in NY. What has been "exemplified" is exactly what's wrong with campaigning as a "moderate" Repub, ie. a RINO. Ann's right. You can't be a better Dem than a Dem.

Her (Scoz.) endorsement of the Dem revealed that the Emporer had no clothes. She confirmed what she was all along, Dem Light. She confirmed the need to get her off the ballot and give voters a choice.

For conservatives and Repub's, many are finally waking up. They are not going to win by being Dem Light. They have to go back to Reagan like conservatism, and talk about conservatism, and explain to people why that is better for them, and convince people that it is better for them. Not easy. But there's no glory in being Dem Light (maybe power for the individuals and their contributors, but why should voters care about that?).

So are you shocked at Rush's crude humor, or do you think that's a level of sexual humor that you hear all the time coming from, say, Chris Rock or Bill Maher, and aimed at conservatives?

I'm not terribly shocked, and while Chris Rock and Bill Maher aren't the ones I'd single out (I don't recall Rock doing that, and everything I've seen Maher in just makes him look smarmy, not dirty), liberals do crack those kinds of jokes all the time. It's about on the same level of objectionable-ness as, say, news-anchors giggling and punning about "teabagging."

So are you shocked at Rush's crude humor, or do you think that's a level of sexual humor that you hear all the time coming from, say, Chris Rock or Bill Maher, and aimed at conservatives?

Nope, not shocked at all. Until the liberals stop using the sexual term Teabagger or Teabagging to describe conservatives, all decorum is off the table.

Why should conservatives be the only ones who have to watch what they say, while liberals can get away with all sorts of sexual slurs (Letterman) and character assassination? Probably because our parents taught us to have better manners than that. However, now is the time to play just as dirty and just as hard as the scum sucking libtards.

They don't like RINOs and they want to discredit them, and they are exulting over Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat because it demonstrates clear that RINOs are not really Republicans

Excatly. This is where Palin will begin to show her influence. The RINOs and the Liberals of all denominations are in her cross hairs. I see her role as a 'rainmaker' for the conservative movement. Removing the liberals from office.

Political posturing pure and simple--trying to generate anger in hopes of attracting a few votes.Almost all of our politicians are in fact whores, scozzafava is only slightly less blatent a whore than is Arlen Specter

Slow news day apparently until the counting takes place tonite and the vote stealing tomorrow.

Whatever conservatives are conserving, it's not civility, much less chivalry.

That's "exactly what is wrong" from the point of view of a Democrat like Owens, because he would have preferred to compete with a liberal Republican. Presumably, he knows it's easier for a Democrat to argue that he is the better liberal than to pit liberal values against conservative values. That is what he admitted, isn't it?

But the 23rd is a (modestly) pro-Republican district. Arguing that a Democrat is a better liberal than a Republican is like trying to persuade vegetarians that Wendy's is tastier than a Gardenburger -- the initial appeal is simply not there. Scozzafava's moderate views should have accurately reflected her district.

With her gone, those who are appalled by Limbaugh's intemperate language will vote for the respectful Owens.

Scozzafava undermines all of the other "moderate" Republicans who are trying to make a "big tent" argument.

(An aside: I'm not impressed at all with a "big tent" argument that consists of calls to throw out the icky-poo social cons and religious right and move left. That's no more "big tent" than any other call for ideological purging.)

In any case... Scozzafava didn't "screw" Hoffman. Rush is right that the people she "screwed" were RINOs who just lost a whole lot of their cover.

(I have a *small* amount of sympathy. Local politics is generally about how much a politician can *get* for the district and if they will be sure to *get* as much as possible and make sure they *get* at least as much as anyone else *gets*.)

I'll try to explain it again, but I know it will just go whizzing over your pointy head.

Palin was in a position where she was under constant attack from frivolous ethics allegations that made it impossible to conduct the business of the State. Since she had a target on her back and it was hurting the citizens of the State because of her inability to get any of the business of the State accomplished, she stepped down.

It was a good business decision on the behalf of the citizens of her State of Alaska. Sure she could have 'stuck it out' but to what end. The government would have been more or less stalled and her ability to accomplish any new goals or business that would benefit her State would also have been stalled.

Instead of continuing as a crippled and ineffective leader, she basically took one for the team. Stepped aside and let the Lt. Governor take the lead in advancing the business of the State.

People do this same tactic in business. When the CEO of the company or the President of the Board of Directors is unable to manage the company, that person is sensibly removed so the company can profit.

My first thought was about the "teabagger" comments also. If the liberal Democrat hypocrites want to raise the level of debate, then quit being liberal Democrat hypocrites and hold your own side to the level you pretend to support.

I'm a little surprised but not shocked that Rush would use such crude humor. Guess he's just hitting back twice as hard. A rather clever play on "RINO" though.

Owens is just sucking up, trying to gain a few more votes. He doesn't really give a hoot about Limbaugh's comments. He was probably saying something just as bad before Scozzafava withdrew.

"But Scozzafava was kicked out of the tent. Shivering in the dark, she spied a light on the horizon. There the kindly Democrats gave her a seat by the fire, and made her a hot chocolate."

So what. She is a loser who pissed off her own party and still couldn't attract enough votes to finish second let alone first. Contrast that with Joe Lieberman who left his party and still won re-election despite the intervention of every douschbag in America in favor of his opponent.

If the polls are to be beleived the conservative candidate is going to win today. The voters got a real choice and made one. Hard to see what their is to complain about.

At least Mr. Limbaugh didnt call her a whore, and the evidence is much stronger that she in fact is a whore. (but only in the political sense, of course. What did the democrats promise her for her endorsement? Guess we will find out if the democrat dude wins)

The attacks on Scozzafava became personal (such as calling her Scuzzy Fat One) when she showed her true colors by backing Owens. She did conservatives a favor with that treachery. Because conservatives were saying Scozzafava could not be trusted, and she proved them right. And now she is ruined in politics. The Dems will not trust her and Republicans never will again. She embarassed those who came out to support her---and Rush is loving the chance to embarass them some more.

Before Scozzafava's flip, the attacks were against her past policy positions. I am sorry, but that is completely legitimate in a political race.

"To me, Palin's inability to deal with the likes of Andree McLeod and the Bristol Bay Alliance does cast doubt on her ability to deal with Ahmedinejad and al-Qaeda."

Yeah, who knows what could have happened. She might have been so busy that she didn't have time to meet with the commander in Afghanistan. Or she could have made a deal with the Iranians for them to turn over their enriched uranium only to see them back out of it and taking the implicit international recognition of their right to produce it. Or maybe she would have gotten involved in Honduran politics and wound up having to accept a humiliating deal to bring a Chavista president back to the country to beg for power again. Or worse she may have left GUITMO open or committed to continue to stay in Iraq. I mean who knows how she would have fucked things up.

Palin was in a position where she was under constant attack from frivolous ethics allegations that made it impossible to conduct the business of the State. Since she had a target on her back and it was hurting the citizens of the State because of her inability to get any of the business of the State accomplished, she stepped down.

That's one way to spin it. A better tactic -- that would have shown leadership -- would be to change the laws that hamstrung her. Instead of the Run Away! Run Away! tactic.

To the point at hand: I don't follow NY Politics very closely, but if Owens could have more openly tied attacks on Scozzafava to people outside the district, that might have been more effective. Who in any district likes other people (read: out-of-staters in particular) deciding who they can vote for?

A better tactic -- that would have shown leadership -- would be to change the laws that hamstrung her. Instead of the Run Away! Run Away! tactic

Come now, MM, it is an obvious conflict of interest for a governor to attempt to try to change laws that are costing her money. If she'd tried what you suggest, everyone would've said that she ought to resign and let someone without a personal interest in the matter change the law.

A better tactic -- that would have shown leadership -- would be to change the laws that hamstrung her. Instead of the Run Away! Run Away! tactic.

So the better tactic is to spend months and more likely YEARS to nogotiate with the Alaska legistlature and get THEM to pass a bill (because the Governor doesn't make legislation). Have you paid any attention to how legislatures across this country actually work? They work at a snail's pace and most often don't work at all.

In the meantime, besides wasting years of time on this effort and continuing to fend off stupid lawsuits and allegations, the important business of the State is derailed.

Much better to totally immerse your self into the septic tank and try to bail it out with a teaspoon.

Yep...that's a way better idea than giving over the leadership of the State/company to someone who will be able to get things accomplished.

Crack, that ties into what I call the Scooby-Doo theory of everything.

When Scooby-Doo began it was about rationality and reason winning over superstition and fear. The ghosts were never real. There was always a scientific and rational explanation... usually involving human vice. But the lesson was always not to believe or be controlled by fear of the supernatural... which didn't exist.

Sometime after the globe trotters, Phillis Diller and Don Knots, and before Scrappy-Doo... the ghosts turned real.

Like most things I imagine it will go in cycles. It's amazing to me just how accepting of paranormal idiocy people are today while still believing themselves objective and rational (but it doesn't count, I suppose, so long as *traditional* religion is being rejected).

We'll know we're past irrationality when the next Scooby-Doo special involves "the gang" uncovering the money making scam of a Sweat Lodge Cultist.

Why should conservatives be the only ones who have to watch what they say, while liberals can get away with all sorts of sexual slurs (Letterman) and character assassination? Probably because our parents taught us to have better manners than that. However, now is the time to play just as dirty and just as hard as the scum sucking libtards.

I'm with you, DBQ. Even my petite, raven-haired beauty is steamed up at the Dumbocrats right now. Takes a lot to get her angry; it only took a few months for Barack Obama and Chicago-style politics to accomplish this and today Creigh Deeds is paying for it.

"Why should conservatives be the only ones who have to watch what they say, while liberals can get away with all sorts of sexual slurs (Letterman) and character assassination? Probably because our parents taught us to have better manners than that."

It's the hypocrisy.

If you were never taught manners or claim to have manners then a lack of manners is excused.

Dems and Libs are ones disappointed at Palin for choosing not to be in Alaska fighting bogus ethics charges. Much better for them than having her exert an obvious and effective influence in national politics as a conservative force.

What’s interesting to me about your comment of Sc’s feminist harm – how is what’s happening up there helping feminism, in the long run? Hoffman’s got the right view on the litmus test, apparently, but how far do they take this? Where are all the potential women candidates that have the same view, that then get elected, growing that branch of the feminist tree? Where’s the progress on the feminist front anywhere in this story?

Let's see... Al Gore can rant like a lunatic villain straight out of a James Bond movie and screech that "Bush betrayed this country".... and the MoveOn.org pussies can run an ad in the NY Times that calls a high ranking general 'General BetrayUs'.

Based on my having lived for two weeks in two summers 40+ years ago in NY 23 & having successfully gotten a fellow soldier out of the Watertown jail (state of the art then) after he was arrested for urinating in public (on the juke box – remember them? – in a bar, in which the patrons were shocked, shocked), having spent a lifetime watching cartoons, & having read the WSJ interview of the new NEA chairman today, let me give my expert opinion on the following:

(1) People in NY 23 don’t like public urination, but the NEA head does & so kudos to Hoosier Daddy.

(2) Kudos to whatever kev said that when he heard “despicable”, he thought of Daffy Duck.

(3) Prof A has it right, the candidate formerly known as “Republican” has given the RINO game away. But, alas, with the apparent disenfranchisement of military voters & early voting, it’s hard to predict who will win, either in the initial tally or the tally after the outside lawyers are parachuted in by Soros & it’s Minnesota 2008 all over.

(4) On the other hand, Republican Conservatives in NE Queens (Bayside) have nominated for NYC Council a former Irish RC from Da Bronx who now “practices Theodism, a neo-pagan faith based on the tribal religions of European Germanic people.”linkWords fail, though I’m sure that C4 will make some connection here to the Joos & neo-cons.

I'm thinking the frivolous ethics complaints weren't really why Sarah Palin quit. After the election she looked around and she found she had before her a veritable smorgasboard of lucrative opportunities, mainly the book deal and an endless supply speaking engagement requests at 100k per. She couldn't realize any of it while still governor. She decided to go for it.

This is why one has allies in the Legislature -- to carry water when you need laws changed.

What will Sarah Palin do if she is President (I initially typed when [laugh]) and lawsuits are brought? Resign?

This entire discussion is meaningless without knowing the makeup of Congress during a potential Palin administration. I could just as easily argue that a Hillary administration would be likewise hamstrung simply based on the level of knee-jerk hatred many on the right have her that particular harpy/misspeaker/don’t recaller/sniper dodger. I personally believe that her resignation will be a political liability regardless if it was the right thing to do or not. It WILL haunt her.

I have no idea why the left thinks Gen X and beyond conservatives believe we need to act like the Boomer conservatives and just continue on in the same stolid, prudish manner. I would have thought South Park would have disavowed you people that we can’t punch back twice as hard in the creative realm of political discourse.

Oh, and FLS, just admit that you’ve got severe ADD and we’ll all stop trying to get you to answer specific challenges to your own comments.

I'm thinking the frivolous ethics complaints weren't really why Sarah Palin quit. After the election she looked around and she found she had before her a veritable smorgasboard of lucrative opportunities, mainly the book deal and an endless supply speaking engagement requests at 100k per. She couldn't realize any of it while still governor. She decided to go for it.

After the election she looked around and she found she had before her a veritable smorgasboard of lucrative opportunities, mainly the book deal and an endless supply speaking engagement requests at 100k per.

Well it worked for Algore and all he's doing is making a profit doing the same thing as those nitwits on the streetcorner wearing the sign that says THE END IS NEAR!!!

Mona wrote (on feminism): Owen’s got the right view on the litmus test, apparently, ....

"Apparently" is the operative word. "Feminism" relates to economic, political and social equality for women. It is not synonymous with "liberalism."

However, when a woman steps forward as the political equal of men, the "apparently" gives "liberals," male and female, license to repress her-- in Palin's case, savagely -- in furtherance of the "liberal" cause.

Then what does this make Bush:…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

I appreciate all the liberals here trying to help the republicans out of the wilderness by rejecting a conservative like Hoffman. Bless you, you kind, kind souls. Sadly we didn't take your advice with Reagan. Perhaps we will learn and accept your wisdom on Sarah Palin.

"After the election she looked around and she found she had before her a veritable smorgasboard of lucrative opportunities, mainly the book deal and an endless supply speaking engagement requests at 100k per."

All else being equal (it wasn't, but if it was) her political and monetary opportunities would have been enhanced by remaining governor, not reduced. Even those of us who think she did the right thing given the situation don't think that quitting *helped* her.

Another wonderful thing Clinton did to the military was institute “stress cards” given to recruits in basic training. If you felt they were coming down on you too hard, all you had to do was hold this card over your head and the DI’s had to back off. It was just after my time in basic, so I’m not sure how it worked in practice there on the spot, but I do know the quality of recruits we were getting out of Basic dropped off a cliff. It took years to right the ship, so to speak.

If you can't differentiate between a near economic collapse a year ago, and eight years after a relatively mild recession, then you my friend should be in kindergarten. Let's not act like everytime we talk about the Reagan/Volcker economic policy we don't link that with Carter. It's because that makes sense and reflects reality. Political hacks can ignore reality to try to score some points (The economy was fine before that dagnabit Obama ruined it) or you can be realistic and realize that Bush's economic policies failed and Obama does indeed have to clean up the mess.

If 8 years from now and we aren't any better than we are today, I'll rip Obama just as much as the hacks on this blog do. But I'm not deranged enough to join the "it's all Obama's fault" harpies until we've seen some daylight from miserable Bush years.

But I'm not deranged enough to join the "it's all Obama's fault" harpies until we've seen some daylight from miserable Bush years.

I also suggest you brush up on some reading comprehension. I didn't say it was Obama's fault, I'm asking him to quit crying like a pussy about what he 'inherited'. He didn't inherit anything. He asked for the fucking job.

Right now the only thing I see changing is the fucking deficit going through the roof with more reckless spending and continued aimless wandering on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, outside of his worldwide apology tour it's not much different than Bush.

It's about on the same level of objectionable-ness as, say, news-anchors giggling and punning about "teabagging." So, uh, yeah. That's actually pretty objectionable.

I don't think that's quite what was so scandalous about "teabagger". What was really scandalous was that here you had news anchors, who are supposed to be evenhanded, snarking away like they're passionate advocates for leftism. It unmasked them, revealed them for the leftists that they really are and have been all along. That's what really caught the attention. Rush Limbaugh isn't pretending to be anything other than a passionate advocate for conservatism. Rush hasn't been unmasked because he was never wearing a mask.

"Tell me what company you keep and I'll tell you what you are." --Cervantes

Funny, I was saying the same thing about Obama after I found out Reverend Wright is his spiritual mentor and he is pals with Bill Ayres. I'd say his pick of Jones and Dunn pretty much confirm who he is.

W. was incompetent, too. But he did not sign a poorly-designed $787 billion stimulus package into law and say it would keep unemployment below 8%. That was Obama.

W. also did not propose an unaffordable health-care plan during a time when unemployment was almost 10%. That was Obama.

The point of a stimulus, if it is to work, is to restore consumer and business confidence so they begin to spend and invest again (the C and B in the GDP equation).

An expensive, unaffordable health care plan (that does not even cover everyone) does not inspire consumer and business confidence.

Obama's initial rationale was to reduce the costs of health insurance and health care, which would be a great idea. But since all the proposed plans would increase the costs, he and the proponents changed the rationale. Instead, he should have scrapped the plan.

That he hasn't shows he's a highly-partisan ideologue. Does that remind you of any other president?

If 8 years from now and we aren't any better than we are today, I'll rip Obama just as much as the hacks on this blog do.

Here's Invisible Man pretending to be an objective observer of presidential practices. Obama does this too, pretends that nobody remembers what he says from one day to the next.

There is something in the genetic makeup of lefties that prevents them from playing it straight.

IM, you voted for Obama and before that Kerry and, if old enough, before that alGore. No matter how Obama screws up, you will support him, just as you ignore his screwups now. And you will vote for the next candidate the Dems put up and the ones after that -- however corrupt and stupid.

I thought the mark of all the beautiful liberated leftist people is complete and open frankness about and lip smacking relish for all things sexual. But the wrong person makes a joke with a sexual reference and they're suddenly shocked! shocked! Hypocrites.

Well, we've taken to referring to Anderson Cooper as the "Teabagging expert." And I agree with the comment above that what was particularly shocking was that national NEWS anchors took to sniggering on air, participating in the denigration of ordinary citizens who had the audacity to say "Read the bill before you sign it." What we saw happen in this last election, with the viciousness of the attacks on Sarah Palin, and now on ordinary citizens is quite astounding.

Perhaps they have become corrupted by their environment. "Teabagging" was not in the lexicon of the normal populace.

The so-called journalists are going to have to do alot to repair the damage they have done to their own profession. FOX proves that investigative journalism is not yet dead, and all the good ones are moving to FOX. Gonna be an interesting year.

…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

What makes you think this "senior administration official" actually exists? I doubt half the unnamed sources you read about exist. The fact is Obama himself is still whining after a year into his presidency. Did Bush do that?

I don't think that's quite what was so scandalous about "teabagger". What was really scandalous was that here you had news anchors, who are supposed to be evenhanded, snarking away like they're passionate advocates for leftism. It unmasked them, revealed them for the leftists that they really are and have been all along.

Really? That's what was scandalous? That news anchors turned out to be rabid liberals? Oh, shock, horror! Didn't we know that already? I mean, remember Dan Rather and his ludicrous faked up military records? Did anyone honestly think his overweening leftist bias was exceptional? If everyone knows they're biased, and the "objective" pose is all nudges and winks and nods, I don't think we can call it scandalous when it turns out that yes, that's exactly right.

I think the bit that was scandalous was that they were tittering like middle schoolers over extremely dirty sex jokes on primetime news. There's a time and a place for that kind of thing, and that time and place is not the nightly news. At least save it for comedy news, like the Daily Show.

"After the election she looked around and she found she had before her a veritable smorgasboard of lucrative opportunities, mainly the book deal and an endless supply speaking engagement requests at 100k per."

Considering it has in fact occurred and let stand, I'll stick by that "probably." You go ahead and stick by your assertion ("Hey! It's just a joke!") that allowing blacks to vote is voter fraud. And I realize it was a joke on your part. What's not a joke is when black supremacists are permitted to blatantly intimidate voters without repercussion. Guess Whitey deserves it, eh?

What's not a joke is when black supremacists are permitted to blatantly intimidate voters without repercussion. Guess Whitey deserves it, eh?

Garage is reserving his concern over the teabagging black guy carrying the machine gun at the anti-American protest rally last summer and not about a couple of black panthers opening the doors for folks at the polling place.

See, if you try these liberal sunglasses, the world does look much different. Wow! There just went a unicorn!

See, if you try these liberal sunglasses, the world does look much different. Wow! There just went a unicorn!

Evidenced by the complete drubbing conservatives have been taking at the polls the past 3 yrs? Take some stock and look at crazies who are leading the conservative movement, and tell me who is wearing sunglasses. I know you never will mind you.

Take some stock and look at crazies who are leading the conservative movement, and tell me who is wearing sunglasses. I know you never will mind you.

I'll let you know after the 2010 elections garage. Right now your side isn't exactly causing tingles up any legs. Hell your side can't even get enough of its own to vote through President Shortpants pet project.

Things will change Garage, they always do. Recall the elections of 1993; recall the elections of 2006; and we can go back to the 1798 and 1824--ruling majorities do not last in American politics. Might want to ponder that piece of american electoral politics. Your guys will be up for a while; but only for a while.

The problem with liberals like garage is that they think THIS time it’s different. But as you say, the pendulum ever swings. Obama and his pals are doing the classic overreach and its showing in the polls. Obama and his socialist brethren know they have his one shot to pass a $1 trillion dollar nightmare of a health care bill at a time when unemployment is 10% and probably going to rise even more with this POS legislation not to mention miring us in debt that is going to require pre-Kennedy era tax rates just to pay the interest.

Yes that will be a real winning platform for the dim bulbs to have their names in the Yea column.

Eh, liberals have been winning. I expect things to be the same. Exactly what policies again do you think liberals are out of the mainstream on?

Ok garage. Liberals won in 06 and 09. You own the House, the Senate and the big boy chair in the White House. Now unless you haven't been paying attention, and it's obvious from your question, Obambi's trillion dollar boondoggle doesn't thrill a whole lot of people including plenty in your own party.

Exactly what policies again do you think liberals are out of the mainstream on?

If the subtext of that questions was the statement, “liberal ideals are the mainstream,” or, “conservatives are out of the mainstream,” my answer would start with the point that only someone who believes that the citizenry of this country is center-left. I believe to be demonstrably center-right and this is born out again and again, much to the left’s chagrin.

Scott M - the country is center right as witnessed by the blue dogs blocking the public option - for the moment. But that can change real fast if the blue dogs sense the country is leaning center-left. These people have no scruples.

I believe to be demonstrably center-right and this is born out again and again, much to the left’s chagrin..

Forget it. garage is convinced that Democrat wins in 2006 and 2009is all one needs to determine the overwhelming trend that we have become a liberal leaning nation.

If the Dems win even more seats or hell, if they just hold what they have in 2010 then I'll concede the point and get out my little red book and start singing the praises of Mao just like Obambi's communication's director.

Rush's comments are so much less offensive than those of some one like Matthews or Olbermann that they can not even be compared.

Scozzafava's actions after dropping out speak far more about the turth of the tag she got for being not just a RINO but a leftwing operative that it isn't humorous...just dispicable. And now her partner in this charade is out defending her? Please!

Scott M - the country is center right as witnessed by the blue dogs blocking the public option - for the moment. But that can change real fast if the blue dogs sense the country is leaning center-left. These people have no scruples.

Ye-es . . . but that's kind of the genius of democracy, no? That within certain limits, leaders either have to bend to the public will, regardless of their private principles, or be broken, and find themselves replaced by new servants who will bend to the will of their Master. No, this process doesn't work perfectly, but what you're outlining is a situation where it more or less works as intended.

I don’t want to open up the whole BP-Philly thing because it’s a tad off-topic. However, if you think (and apparently you do through your use minimizing language) that this wasn’t a big deal, you’re the one who needs recalibrating. I’ll even grant you that it’s not as big a deal as what Justice did afterward.

Standing outside an American polling facility with both visual and verbal intimidation is about as un-American as it gets. Let’s put white sheets, hoods, and burning crosses (simulated, of course) in the hands of skinheads outside a polling station in, say, East Saint Louis, and see if you still think its not a big deal. Further, alluding to the aforementioned Justice Dept’s part in this little debacle, I’m betting full charges would be leveled.

Jumping beans were used as a recurring gag in many cartoons from the 1930s to the 1950s, wherein eating the beans would cause a character's whole body to bounce out of control and land on something painful.

Scott M -- you'd be even more appalled to learn that the DOJ did not even follow up on cases of voter intimidation in New Mexico last year, much less be in a position to drop charges. Their targets were elderly women.

Listen to this:

Guadalupe Bojorquez said a man who identified himself as a private investigator by the name of Al Romero visited the home of her 67-year-old mother on Wednesday.

“She calls me and she’s panicked because there is this man outside and he’s telling her he’s an investigator and he wants to come in to the house,” Bojorquez told NMI. She said her mother then put the man on the phone.

“I asked him, but he wouldn’t tell me who he worked for. He just said he wanted to verify that she was a legitimate voter and he wanted to see her documents. I told him ‘No,’ and we argued for a little bit.

...

Bojorquez said her mother felt wary about the visit.

“My mom is confused because she doesn’t understand why she’s being put through this because she voted. She doesn’t trust anybody anymore,” Bojorquez said, requesting that her mother’s name not be published again.

Another woman visited by the private investigator:

“It freaked me out when he got upset, when I did tell him that, regardless of what happens, my grandmother is voting and it’s OK for her to vote.”

“He tried to tell me to tell her to be careful when she’s voting. He was trying to tell me stuff to scare her from voting.”

The private investigator later revealed he had been hired by GOP attorney Patrick Rogers. At least ten elderly women had been harassed by this GOP operative. Both the ACLU and MALDEF filed suit; the DOJ was not interested.

FLS thinks that black panthers intimidating and threatening people at a polling place is no big deal.

My jaw just dropped to the floor. Did you see the video?

Of course he did. But he watched it like a liberal. Eyes closed and fingers in his ears chanting "lalalalalalal I can't hear you".

If the situation were reversed. Southern white guys with billy clubs wearing their KKK party clothing outside of a pollin place in a black or ethnic neighborhood, the shit would hit the fan and you would never hear the end of whining from FLS.

I doubt that Owens would want to try to tie Scozzafava to out of state support. That might bring up the question of where did all his funding come from and I would bet that most of it came from out of state as did the support of the national Dem party. It would also bring up the question of where Zero got all his funding and he sure don't want to go there!!

Why is it the knee-jerk reaction of a liberal to defend bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior

Because they generally have the emotional maturity of an 11 year old. When caught with their hands in the cookie jar or some other transgression their first thought is to say.....Ya BUT Bush/Joey/Sally/his imaginary friend...did it worse, first. The Bart Simpson method of: I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing.

Hey, if the right-wing lets slide armed gunmen intimidating voters at a Baptist church back in 2006, it's hard for me to work up outrage about a guy carrying only a billy club in 2008. from Mother Jones (also at the Tucson Citizen) Sorry no youtube:

On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.

The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote.

It's not the first time Dove and Warden have been accused of this type of act. Dove, who is a convicted felon and former militia member, patrolled Arizona's polls in 2004 as well, and Warden has publicly burned a Mexican flag (for which he was charged with arson) and acknowledged that he sought a concealed-carry permit for a gun, partly in hopes of enticing a local police officer to attack him and force Warden to use deadly force in self-defense.

1. People saying the voters must vote for or against a candidate simply because of an insult some uneclected pundit on the Left or Right - are stupid.

2. Haley Barbour, who helped build REpublican majorities before the Bush debacles - noted Republicans must come in all flavors. Because there is no way to transplant a Mississippi Baptist good ol' boy to become a George Pataki, and no way for a Jodi Rell to go to Texas and win."To me, calling someone like Senator Snowe, who votes with Republicans 80% of the time as a RINO to be purged is stupid. And it is usually by people that can't stop talking about how much they love Joe Lieberman, even though he votes with liberal Democrats 95% of the time."Barbour went on to say that if he could swap out the Senate seats in New England outside Maine, and in New York...with clones of Gregg, Collins, and Snowe....it would be great for Republicans and the nation.

3. Barry Goldwater became more Libertarian in his later years than Conservative. Being for gay marriage, drug legalization.

3. Reagan talked conservative but governed pragmatically and by compromise. Both as Cali's Gov and as President. He believed in evolution, He picked a liberal Pennsylvania Congressman, Richard Sweicker, as his proposed VP in 1976. He had many gay friends, and busied himself before his 1980 Presidential run campaigning passionately against the conservative's anti-homosexual Prop 6.

4. Nixon? He packed his Administration with bipartisan intellect. After losing every state in the Deep South outside the Carolinas and Texas to boot. His most notable programs were desegregating the schools (80% done under NIxon), equal opportunity, detente with the Communists, unilaterally disarming the US of biowar and nerve gas, Kenysian economics, SALT, the volunteer military. Saved Israel over Kissinger's objections. And Watergate derailed his two last, big programs: A comprehensive National Energy Program to get us off ME oil, and National Health Insurance - something Nixon was passionate about since he lost family members because they were too poor to get medical care..

Haley Barbour, Goldwater, Reagan, Nixon....all RINOs in Rush's eye?

Who cares about Rush. He is just an Olbermann, albeit far more talented and entertaining.

Well on a different topic, I was able to turn my 12 year old daughter into a conservative with a perfect example of why she doesn't want to be a liberal. It was quite easy and I used a real world example.

Hoosier daughter babysits and actually makes a pretty good coin doing it. I explained to her that a liberal government advocates a progressive tax system which means the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes. So when she did an all day babysitting she was paid $80 and I explained that using the tax system that President Shortpants wants, she would be in the highest tax bracket (that was the most she ever earned in on sitting) and I would take 40% which means she has to give up $32 and she keeps the rest.

Needless to say she said that sucks and would not be voting Democrat when she turns 18. Good luck to the dipshit who tries to convert her to the feversawmps of liberalsim.

Why the outrage over loanguage from a conservative when the libs routinely defend such usage by libs? It's an Alinsky thing. Hold your opponents to their own values. Civility is a conservative value, not a leftist one.

Needless to say she said that sucks and would not be voting Democrat when she turns 18.

$80 a day? Assuming she worked 250 days a year, that would be $20K -- a little less than twice the poverty level for a single person. Being well below the single person median income for every state of the union, she would be one of the people that conservatives assure us pay no taxes.

Good job convincing her that her entire income would be taxed at the highest marginal rate.

If you can't take the heat don't go into politics. Rush isn't attacking her personally. Did he file a formal ethics complaint against her? Did he attack her husband or her kids? Did he try to cause NY to pay for non-existent violations that needed to be investigated? No, No and hell no.

I'll try one more time, but you keep missing the point. You just keep going on citing bad behavior to defend other bad behavior. You cede any moral high ground at all in doing so, both here and in threads future. Apparently it's only going to "get you worked up" if the other side is doing it.

And by the way, HD's daughter, if I read it right, was making more than she'd ever earned before babysitting...a simulated highest bracket.

$80 a day? Assuming she worked 250 days a year, that would be $20K -- a little less than twice the poverty level for a single person. Being well below the single person median income for every state of the union, she would be one of the people that conservatives assure us pay no taxes.

Sigh. You must have missed the part where I mentioned she was 12 and made that babysitting. See I was giving her a lesson in how progressives view taxing people using her babysitting wages as an example. Basically the harder you work and the more you earn the more you hand over to Uncle Sugar. So when she spent the whole day babysitting and earned more money she would be in a higher tax bracket. That's the progressive system of marginal taxation.

Good job convincing her that her entire income would be taxed at the highest marginal rate.

Well there was a time when the marginal rate was 90% and I'm sure if Obambi had his way, it would be again so its not a radical concept. Actually she wasn't keen on the idea of the 40% bracket either.

Why not wait till she's making three or even four times the poverty level, before she starts worrying about being taxed at the rates of people earning a quarter-million a year?

You really are thick aren't you? The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that in the progressive/liberal mindset the harder you work and the more you earn, the more tax you end up paying.

And while I know Joe the Plumber really irks the leftists, what he asked Obama is spot on. Why I should work harder only to have the government confiscate a higher percentage of my income so he can spread the wealth in a manner HE sees fit is more than a legitimate question. Which is probably why it pisses off liberals.

You really are thick aren't you? The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that in the progressive/liberal mindset the harder you work and the more you earn, the more tax you end up paying.

But your scenario was too far removed from reality. You would have had to start with, "Honey, let's say you made $800 for your day's work, not $80." You left out the progressive nature of marginal rates, and the zero bracket amount. Basically you tried to persuade her she would some day be in the top 1% of earners.

Do you prepare her in other ways for this top 1% future? How to dance at a cotillion, what to say when she's presented to the Queen, how to ride to hounds, how to appreciate wine?